On 03/27/2012 06:32 AM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
So, I would like to propose alternative syntax solving the issues
above. I probably should start with saying that if the talk is about
LAVA, then using native LAVA JSON request immediately comes to mind.
Well, I guess human-writability wasn't a design goal for that, so I
skip it. It still makes sense to stick to general-purpose hierarchical
structure syntax though. Except that JSON has 2 problems: a) it doesn't
support comments natively, so we'll need to pre-process
I'm fine with the overall idea, but I'm not a big fan of adding support
for comments for two reasons.
1) are these files really so exotic they need comments. ie:
# run monkey
{
"commands": [ "monkey 2000"],
}
I don't see those type of comments as useful
2) if comments are needed couldn't we work around it and still be valid
JSON by doing something like:
{
"comment": "Let's pretend this is useful",
"commands": [ "monkey 2000"],
}
_______________________________________________
linaro-validation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
